In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

212 12 Ombudsman I know what happened in adoption, and I know why. I think of it as a tragedy, but also I believe that adoption can at long last recover, and I will do whatever I can, as long as breath is in me, to help it come to pass. —Jean Paton, 1978 As early as 1954, Paton assumed a new role, one which she performed for another forty-eight years: that of unelected, self-appointed ombudsman, acting as an intermediary, watchdog, investigator, spokesperson, and defender of the adoption community. No issue was too small (the use of the word“adopt” in connection with highways or pets) or too large (perceived miscarriages of justices in social work, court proceedings, or congressional legislation) for Paton to sit down at the typewriter and dash off principled advice objecting to an action or practice. In February 1954, Paton broke away from writing The Adopted Break Silence, and for the first time became involved in a matter of public policy about adoption through a court case. The legal dispute came to Paton’s attention when an adult adoptee, Ruth Oliver Hill, literally knocked on Paton’s door in Philadelphia .1 Hill informed Paton that as a result of the death of John Tschudy, the Wisconsin Department of Welfare was in the process of removing the Tschudys’ adopted child, Jeffrey, from the widow, placing the child in a foster home. Mrs. Tschudy had brought suit in the Columbia County Court in Portage ,Wisconsin, attempting to retain custody of Jeffrey. Paton and Hill traveled to Madison, Wisconsin,2 and on February 2 wrote the presiding judge, Alton Morrison, to protest the welfare department’s action. Citing their special interest in the case—“having been adopted children”—Paton and Hill protested on two grounds the Department of Welfare’s action. First, they doubted that a suc- Ombudsman 213 cessful adoption had to conform to such a rigid social work standard, referring to a two-parent household. Second, they believed that the removal of the child during his early childhood simply because of a normal family misfortune was psychologically damaging. It was a threat to the child’s permanent sense of security and to all adoptive placements.In support of their second claim,the letter mentioned the Life History Study Center’s research project , which was providing compelling evidence, despite its limited sample of adult adoptees, that the “‘best environments’ do not necessarily make for the best security for adopted children” because psychological security for young children, and thus security for the adult in later life, did not depend on wealth and social position. It was, rather, the result of love, affection, and a feeling of belonging. They doubted whether“little Jeffrey could ever find compete security in another foster home, no matter how carefully it might be chosen.”3 In mid-February, after he had rendered his decision, Judge Morrison replied to Paton and Hill. His opinion mirrored some of their ideas, but nevertheless he felt compelled by the law to uphold the Department of Welfare. Sympathizing with Paton and Hill,the judge commented that the welfare officials were not free in their approach because they were responsible to their superiors, and as a result,“their thinking becomes warped.” He wished the two women continued good luck in their endeavors.4 Paton did not let the matter rest. On August 1, immediately after finishing The Adopted Break Silence, she again wrote Judge Morrison, informing him that her findings confirmed her original belief that adopted children raised by widows had turned out favorably.5 A year later, on November 4, 1955, again acting in her new role as ombudsman for the adoption triad, Paton fired off a letter in response to a newspaper article, which described how, at a session of the National Council of Churches ’ conference on social welfare, representatives deplored the black market in babies. Playing on the term “black market,” Paton advocated “the more fundamental green market.” She explained that a green market was one “wherein all participants in adoption thrive through the years.” Although admitting that it may be necessary for an unmarried woman to relinquish her child to adoptive parents, Paton declared that it should not“mean a lifetime of sorrow and worry about this child of her flesh and mishap.” She then asked how the pain and ages-long stigma was to be removed. This was possible, she answered, “under Christian concepts” and the Life History Study Center’s Registration Service...

Share